CRW@icf.hrb.com (Craig R. Watkins) (02/04/91)
In article <16659@accuvax.nwu.edu>, gtisqr!toddi@yang.cpac. washington.edu (Todd Inch) writes: > That's what I have. GTE (north of Seattle, WA, near Everett) didn't > charge extra to make the first line hunt to the second line when the > first is busy, which surprised me a bit. Monthly and LD charges for > both lines are intermixed on a single bill. Same thing here in Bell of PA land. > I had originally asked for a "circular hunt" where calls coming into > the second line would also hunt the first, but they won't give it to > me. [...] > After not giving me what I'd asked for and then playing around for a > few days, GTE finally said that a circular hunt wasn't tarriffed, so > they couldn't do it. They admitted that their equipment could do it, > and even said they had it programmed that way for about a half day, > then realized there was no tarriff for it and changed it back. Can > anyone give evidence that this IS tarriffed? (Tad?) Here's how it works here according to Bell of PA when I checked a few years ago: Circular hunting is tarriffed as a business service. So if I wanted circular, I would have had to switch my service to business and pay a fairly high monthly rate for it (I think it was around $8/month -- I forget if that was per line for sure, but I think it was). I found this out right after moving across town into a new place. In the old place I had (free) circular hunting with the folks next door (different address, different bill). (In case one wonders what use that would be, we had both lines running into a shared PBX.) The folks at Bell that moved my service for me had no idea how I got that installed originally (I just asked, I think). It seems like the old business/residence thing. Many residential reps don't even know what circular hunting is. > We used to answer line two (when line one isn't busy) "I'm sorry, you > have the wrong number." But that just confused them and they wanted > to know how we knew. I have some "extra" lines on my electronic set at work (software defined numbers -- no actual addition hardware involved). When they ring, I know it's a wrong number. I've actually been suprised at the number of people that accept "Sorry, wrong number" that I actually now use that most of the time. It lets the people know they dialed wrong and it lets me get off the phone fairly quickly. > Now I just answer "We're sorry, the number you > have dialed has been disconnected or is no longer in service . . ." :-) > Their response is now usually just a click as they hang up after the > first few words of my intercept impression. I like that. Good idea. Craig R. Watkins Internet: CRW@ICF.HRB.COM HRB Systems, Inc. Bitnet: CRW%HRB@PSUECL.Bitnet +1 814 238-4311 UUCP: ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw
john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) (02/05/91)
Todd Inch <gtisqr!toddi@yang.cpac.washington.edu> writes: > We used to answer line two (when line one isn't busy) "I'm sorry, you > have the wrong number." You are absolutely correct: people cannot deal with a phone answered in that manner. Throughout life, I have always had at least one telephone line that was not only unlisted, but one that I had never given out to anyone for any reason. If the line was connected to an answerable phone, I would sometimes answer it in the manner you describe. Most of the time people are just bewildered. But sometimes they became hostile and insisted that I could not possibly know that they had a wrong number without their announcement of whom they were calling. Those were even funnier at times since I would begrudgingly invite them to tell me to whom they wished to speak and then (with greatly enforced authority) inform them that they had indeed reached the wrong number. Few people in our society can deal with the notion that someone would have a telephone and not give ANYONE the number. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/05/91)
In article <16689@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > Few people in our society can deal with the notion that someone would > have a telephone and not give ANYONE the number. Back when I was going to Berkeley someone accidentally gave out the # of the payphone outside the door instead of their own. They got a lot of calls, and some of the store's regulars would take to answering the phone in "interesting" ways after "Pay Phone" and "Wrong Number" wore off. "AT&T security, hold for a trace please" was one of the more memorable ones. I used a number of them a couple of years later when telemarketers started running up our dial-out modem banks. Answering with the name of the company calling always got a reaction, too. They don't do that much any more. Wonder why? (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com)
johna@gold.gvg.tek.com (John Abt) (02/06/91)
In article <16689@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > Few people in our society can deal with the notion that someone would > have a telephone and not give ANYONE the number. I have a sister who is an OB/GYN in the SF Bay area. As you can imagine, she was a slave to her beeper. A while back she bought a handheld cellular (on my recommendation) which she now says "changed her life". But when I asked for her cellular number, she refused to give it to me (her husband does not have it either). She "never" receives calls on the cellular - it's only for "calling in when I'm beeped". John Abt